§ The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Isaacs)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement. In reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) on Tuesday last, about the publication in the "News Chronicle" on 1st November of a story that shop stewards in a hardware factory in Walsall had objected to a fellow worker reading the "Daily Mail." I stated:
The whole thing is a malicious concoction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1037.]I do not want that statement to be the subject of any misconstruction. In making it, I was referring to the facts alleged in the report as published. Further information has confirmed that the story was a concoction, but there appears to be no doubt that the substance of the article was, in fact, communicated to a "News Chronicle" reporter by some person—speaking from the premises of the firm—and that the "News Chronicle" published the article in good faith.
§ Mr. Frank ByersMay I ask the Minister if he is aware that his statement will be generally welcomed, because it exonerates completely the newspapers concerned of the unfounded charges of fabricating the story; and that the "News Chronicle" is continuing its inquiries to find out how and why this statement was made to them on two separate occasions? Finally, may I express the appreciation of many people for the speedy and just way in which he has dealt with the matter?
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerOn behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, 1550 may I express our satisfaction that the Minister should have come down to the House at once to give his own opinion of this matter after investigating it more closely, and may I take it that his remarks apply to both newspapers, because I think both will be anxious that the matter should be cleared up?
§ Mr. IsaacsQuite definitely. It is quite clear that the "Daily Mail" lifted it, with or without permission, from the "News Chronicle"; and, therefore, the responsibility for the collection of the story was that of the "News Chronicle," but the "Daily Mail" had no responsibility.
§ Mr. Vernon BartlettWhile thanking my right hon. Friend for his characteristically generous statement, may I ask him whether there is no way, regarding statements of this kind made in this House, in which hon. Members can be persuaded to take a little more care before they make such statements?
§ Mr. GallacherMay I ask the Minister if he is now laying it down that a newspaper like the "News Chronicle" can accept an untrue story about workers and publish it without making the slightest attempt to get from the workers concerned a statement whether there is any truth in it or not? It is a shameful business.
Mr. BraddockFollowing on that question, may I ask the Minister if he has had any assurance from the proprietors or editors of these papers that they will take a very great deal more care in the future in publishing dangerous statements of this sort than they apparently have done in the past?
§ Mr. Godfrey NicholsonWhile paying my tribute of appreciation to the Minister for his statement—though the story could have been a concoction without being malicious—will he try to see that his admirable example is followed by the Minister of Health, who accused newspapers of much the same thing when they had merely reported what actually took place without expressing an opinion on it?